c-section safer? - Mothering Forums

Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
#1 of 105 Old 03-03-2009, 11:30 AM - Thread Starter
 
justice'smom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 595
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Please forgive me if this is not in the correct place. I just talked to my sil the other day who is pregnant and due in about a month. She and I are due just a few days apart. Anyway, she is having a hospital birth and I am having a homebirth. Let me say, that I am very encouraging with whatever decision she has made. Anyway, we talked about c-sections and how they are done so much more now in America than before and she said it's because it's safer. First of all, I know that is not true, but she also said she doesn't get why people think a dr. would do a c-section just for the money because the dr. doesn't make any more money on a c-section than the dr. makes on a vaginal birth. She said it is her understanding the dr. makes a salary. Is she right about that? Also how can I find info for myself that c-sections are not safer and that we are losing more babies in America than other countries where the norm is vaginal birth? Again, this is for me and not for her. She and I agreed to disagree, but I just want to make sure I'm right about the info I gave her. It makes sense to me that a vaginal birth is safer since that is how God created it to be, but I have been known to be wrong before. Thanks ladies.
justice'smom is offline  
#2 of 105 Old 03-03-2009, 11:38 AM
 
AllyRae's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Ohio
Posts: 6,391
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Of course a c-section is not safer than an uncomplicated vaginal birth (that does not use instruments). A c-section is a major surgery and with it comes the complications of major surgery. There is also increased respiratory distress that comes from a baby being born prior to it's own chosen birth date and not going through the birth canal.

However, I personally believe (yet don't have research to back it up... : ) that a non-emergency c-section might be safer than today's hospitalized vaginal births (meaning births with the combination of pitocin, epidurals, and vacuum extractions). At least safer for the baby...I can't imagine having your head yanked by vacuum suction that can pop off and have to be redone several times, after being squeezed by unnaturally strong contractions is good for the baby. And of course, for some people, a c-section is safer than a vaginal birth (but that's rare of course).

I am coming at this from the angle of someone that had 2 vaginal births that resulted in the pit/epi/vacuum combo, the second of which lead to the death of the baby. My third baby was born via c-section due to another medical issue, plus CPD (confirmed after the first two births--my baby's heads are always bigger than my pelvic opening, and they only come out via vacuum). My little girl had respiratory distress syndrome, but besides a UTI in me a week later, there were no other complications and we both came home a couple days after the birth. However, my abdomen was open, my uterus removed, sewn, and put back in, and the baby was born before she would have otherwise chose to. I can not imagine that is safer than a medication/intervention free birth for a person without pre-existing (or newly existing I guess) reasons for it...

There will always be bad outcomes no matter what you choose to do, but unnecessary interventions are typically more dangerous than letting nature take it's course (and of course, I do believe that sometimes the interventions can be safer than not taking the interventions of course...but I also think that should not be the norm)

~Brandon Michael (11/23/03), Jocelyn Lily Nữ (2/4/07, adopted 5/28/07 from Vietnam), Amelia Rylie (1/14/09), & Ryland Josef William (9/7/05-9/7/05 @ 41 wks). 
AllyRae is offline  
#3 of 105 Old 03-03-2009, 12:04 PM
 
MegBoz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Baltimore, MD
Posts: 2,125
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by justice'smom View Post
she doesn't get why people think a dr. would do a c-section just for the money because the dr. doesn't make any more money on a c-section than the dr. makes on a vaginal birth. She said it is her understanding the dr. makes a salary. Is she right about that?
I'm honestly not sure if she's right or not about the salary & same money for CS vs. vaginal. However, the CS takes less of the doc's time! No waiting around. Nurses & anaesthiologist come in to prep mom, doc does the surgery & it's all said & done. Less time investment. Also, if they're scheduled in advance, no need to wait around during nights & weekends!

She needs to see the movie "The Business of Being Born" if she doesn't believe many CS are done today for reasons other than medical necessity.

There have been some great studies. Unfortunately, I don't have them off hand, but I'm sure you'll get some replies here with good links.
MegBoz is offline  
#4 of 105 Old 03-03-2009, 12:10 PM
 
The4OfUs's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Upstate NY
Posts: 5,102
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
At the hospitals I've worked at, the doctors are salaried, so I don't necessarily buy the "more money" argument (although I guess if sections generate more revenue for the hospital, more sections would mean they would have more revenue to offer higher salaries to doctors)......but I do entirely buy the less time and being able to schedule it, not having to wait around. Sigh.

Heather, WAHM to DS (01/04)DD (06/06). Wed to DH(09/97)
The4OfUs is offline  
#5 of 105 Old 03-03-2009, 12:14 PM
 
2+twins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: At NPT
Posts: 3,483
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
A really big reason that the docs do more c-sections (and in a sense, save money) is b/c of liability concerns. Doing a c-section equates in a court of law to having done "everything" possible to save the mother and/or baby. So if you're looking at this from the sue-happy standpoint of the American way, a doctor will save more money by erring on the side of caution (so to speak) and doing a c-section. That way if the outcome is bad, the doc will not be held liable and will therefore save a bundle on malpractice insurance and payouts. Does that make sense? I'd recommend reading the book Pushed - I don't know how to word these things very well myself but that book really spells it all out for you. Everyone giving birth should read that book first.

Vaginal birth *is* safer than surgical birth for most women and babies. That is indeed true.

Mama to four remarkable kiddos, all born at home.
2+twins is offline  
#6 of 105 Old 03-03-2009, 12:37 PM
 
Full Heart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Surronded by Dairy Farms AZ
Posts: 3,631
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Def not safer. No intervention is without risks. We have a 10 fold increase in accreta because of the sky rocketing c/s rates. With the "once a section, always a section." comes complications that increase with each surgery.

While a dr might not get more money for each c/s the insurance he or the hospital carries is going to look at how many c/s he is doing. If hes not doing enough, they can drop him or increase his rates. They are also done from convenience more than out of necessity. Which is why most c/s happen during the day during the week. Money and time is always a consideration. If not directly, indirectly.

Expecting #9.  Always busy hsing.
Full Heart is offline  
#7 of 105 Old 03-03-2009, 02:35 PM
 
majormajor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 777
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
a c/s (after 39-40 weeks) is probably the safest way for a baby to be born, but the risks to mom and the risks to subsequent pregnancies make it overall the less safe choice. the risks to mom are very serious and IMO, tend to be glossed over.

also, while infant mortality is bad in this country, that measures deaths in the first year. our perinatal and neonatal mortality are good. the US has a lot of premature births, so i don't think c/s are a problem there.

unfortunately, i can't point you to any good resources discussing the problem. most web sites i find terribly biased, most of the data is inaccessible, and the issues are so varied... perhaps one day i'll write my own book on the subject! (i'm a science writer, as qualified as henci goer, but birth is an interest, not a specialty, so i doubt i ever will.... still, who knows).
majormajor is offline  
#8 of 105 Old 03-03-2009, 02:43 PM
 
barefootpoetry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 1,676
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Having your abdomen and colon surgically opened to manually extract your feces and then sewn shut again is not safer than pooping.

There are VERY few RARE cases where it would be safer to have a C-section. Transverse baby, placenta previa, IUGR, to think of a few. But in general, for the vast majority of women, a normal natural bodily function is safer than major surgery.
barefootpoetry is offline  
#9 of 105 Old 03-03-2009, 02:50 PM
 
lisa_nc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: VA
Posts: 1,572
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
For a lot of women, that first cesarean IS somewhat safe (I won't say "safer" because it's not). It's that that first cesarean sets her up for a LONG path of fighting for a VBAC or having a ERCS. With each ERCS and subsequent pregnancy, it becomes dramatically more dangerous. It becomes a question of what you want your reproductive future to be.

Minions...I've got minions. Sheepish.gifblahblah.gifangel2.gifkid.gif  And dogs.  
lisa_nc is offline  
#10 of 105 Old 03-03-2009, 02:58 PM
 
SublimeBirthGirl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Powder Springs, GA
Posts: 3,503
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
12+ hours of labor with an uncertain birth time and possibly having to go to the hospital at 3 am, or 20 minutes in surgery at 3 in the afternoon. Even if they get paid the same amount, it's for a lot less work. It's not just that OBs are cold and evil and don't care about safety; they're brainwashed in medical school. They probably mostly believe that a c-section is as safe as a vaginal birth, even though it most definitely is *not*. An OB in the Business of Being Born talked about how one study showed times for c-sections peaked at 4 pm and 10 pm - time to go home, time to go to bed. And there are far fewer c-sections on the weekend. Convenience is a huge factor.

Doctors do not always do what's best for patients. Look at how they experiment on people, using drugs they don't know are safe, for example. They're just people like anyone else. They're not benevolent gods who only do what's right.

Laura, CBE and mom to Maddiewaterbirth.jpg ( 06/03/04) & Graceuc.jpg (  09/10/06)
 
SublimeBirthGirl is offline  
#11 of 105 Old 03-03-2009, 03:00 PM
 
majormajor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 777
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
also, there are consequences of sections that woudn't even occur to most people. one of my closest friends had 2 sections in the 70s and 80s (and a VBAC in the 90s. she had classical incisions, too. and her VBAC baby was almost 9 lbs, face up. just had to throw that in there!). anyway, she needs some abdominal surgery now, that most people have laproscopically, but she might not be able to because of the scar tissue. who would have thought about that? not me! so now, she's going to have ANOTHER major abdominal surgery in her 50s. so yeah, there are consequences for mom for the rest of your life. definitely NOT something anyone should take lightly!
majormajor is offline  
#12 of 105 Old 03-03-2009, 03:30 PM
 
AlexisT's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Central PA
Posts: 2,269
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Just to answer on the money issue - most insurers have gone to global payments. Single payment for pregnancy and delivery, regardless of how it happens. Insurers don't want to give doctors an incentive to perform extra procedures (which they then have to pay for). This doesn't mean your OB is on salary, though. Private-practice OBs do usually get paid according to the number of deliveries they do, but it doesn't matter which way the baby comes out. In some HMOs doctors are salaried (I believe Kaiser works this way) and some hospitals employ laborists.

While CS are sometimes performed for convenience it is worth noting that an "elective" section (which might be medically necessary) will always be scheduled for a convenient time so we would always expect CS rates to be lower on the weekends.

The real reason is more liability than anything else. Since we have made CS pretty darned safe (we're only seeing problems now from so many repeated sections--they accumulate, and if the mother doesn't have more than 2 children we're unlikely to see them at all) it's much easier for patients to claim that CS was the safer call and a doc should have done it. So they would rather just do the section and not get sued.

In some cases they do really believe it's safer, like routine CS for frank breech, even though the trial might have had problems.

A CS is not safer than an uncomplicated vaginal delivery. The problem is that we don't know which deliveries will be uncomplicated--so CS is like taking off most of the risk from the baby and putting it onto the mother, plus adding some as well. Sometimes this is the right call. But if you do it all the time, you're just making women undergo major surgery for no reason.

DD 01/2007, DS 09/2011

AlexisT is offline  
#13 of 105 Old 03-03-2009, 03:37 PM
 
majormajor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 777
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlexisT View Post

A CS is not safer than an uncomplicated vaginal delivery.
ok i have to be nit-picky here, then i'll stop. i hate this line of thinking, because you could just as easily say an uncomplicated c/s is just as safe as a v-birth. you can always pick out the group that come through just fine in retrospect, but that's pointless. i know you know that, you just happened on a pet peeve of mine!
majormajor is offline  
#14 of 105 Old 03-03-2009, 04:29 PM
 
chandasz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Berwyn, IL
Posts: 858
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
As a definition-- uncomplicated major surgery is still not safer than a bodily function in the presence of normalcy.

There are a million articles out there that talk about this issue. I really like the mothering article about childbirth in a culture of fear. Perhaps search this and give it to her.

The OB may not make more $$ on a c-section (I don't know) but it is a quicker thing than waiting around for a natural birth to happen and if time = money... then maybe it is cheaper. Also there are many others that get paid in the case of a c-section plus all the additional meds. C-sections are a BIG source of income for hospitals if not OBs.
chandasz is offline  
#15 of 105 Old 03-03-2009, 04:30 PM
 
MegBoz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Baltimore, MD
Posts: 2,125
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by majormajor View Post
a c/s (after 39-40 weeks) is probably the safest way for a baby to be born, but the risks to mom and the risks to subsequent pregnancies make it overall the less safe choice.
No, I read of a large study that compared elective CS to vaginal birth & the CS babies had much higher rates of breathing problems.

Found the article:
Quote:
This study suggests that elective Caesarean section compared with intended vaginal delivery leads to a twofold to fourfold increased risk of overall neonatal respiratory morbidity and even higher relative risks of serious respiratory morbidity in term newborns.
MegBoz is offline  
#16 of 105 Old 03-03-2009, 04:44 PM
 
Kelly1101's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Richmond, VA
Posts: 3,829
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by MegBoz View Post
No, I read of a large study that compared elective CS to vaginal birth & the CS babies had much higher rates of breathing problems.

Found the article:
Those results are likely because of a tendency to take the babies out too early, rather than letting them go term.

Kelly (28), in love with husband Jason (38) and our awesome babies:  Emma 4/09, and Ozzy 8/10

Kelly1101 is offline  
#17 of 105 Old 03-03-2009, 04:54 PM
 
chandasz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Berwyn, IL
Posts: 858
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
[QUOTE=majormajor;13294818]a c/s (after 39-40 weeks) is probably the safest way for a baby to be born, QUOTE]

Why do you believe this to be true when the vast majority of the research out there shows otherwise?

Please let me know what brings you to this conclusion. I find this to be a VERY alarming statement.
chandasz is offline  
#18 of 105 Old 03-03-2009, 04:59 PM
 
Drummer's Wife's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Land of Enchantment
Posts: 11,793
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by majormajor View Post
a c/s (after 39-40 weeks) is probably the safest way for a baby to be born, but the risks to mom and the risks to subsequent pregnancies make it overall the less safe choice. the risks to mom are very serious and IMO, tend to be glossed over.
where did you find that info?

:

ribboncesarean.gif cesareans happen.
Drummer's Wife is offline  
#19 of 105 Old 03-03-2009, 05:01 PM
 
MegBoz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Baltimore, MD
Posts: 2,125
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kelly1101 View Post
Those results are likely because of a tendency to take the babies out too early, rather than letting them go term.
Nope. They evaluated that:

Quote:
It was found that 2.8 per cent of infants delivered normally at 37 weeks had respiratory problems compared with 10 per cent of those delivered by elective Caesarean. At 38 weeks the proportion was 1.7 per cent compared with 5.1 per cent, and at 39 weeks 1.1 per cent compared with 2.1 per cent.
MegBoz is offline  
#20 of 105 Old 03-03-2009, 05:57 PM
 
majormajor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 777
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by MegBoz View Post
No, I read of a large study that compared elective CS to vaginal birth & the CS babies had much higher rates of breathing problems.

Found the article:
sorry, i should be more specific! when i say safe, i'm thinking only of major morbidity or mortality. so, for babies, that's permanent brain damage, paralysis, and death. for mothers, pretty much only death (just personal parameters).

re: that elective c/s study, the morbidity they discuss there are transient breathing problems, not death. i don't recall whether that study looked at mortality. but certainly, yes, transient breathing problems are higher in c/s babies. interestingly, i recall that that study showed that babies who were c/s'ed after labor had the same rates of breathing problems as vaginally born babies. would be quite interesting if it's labor, not the squeeze through the birth canal, that does whatever it does to the lungs!

finally, i will have to get back to you on why i believe what i do. a quick answer is that i'm not a big believer in much of the published research... i think there are so many flaws, and a lot of the research just doesn't do a good job of answering the question it's trying to answer. it's not that i think science doesn't work, it's just that i'm not sure how i feel about epidemiology. i think it might truly suck, but i'm still working out my feelings on that. but you can't do a randomized, double-blind, controlled trial on c/s vs. vaginal birth, so you have to do what you can with what you have. and anyway, there are few studies looking at just c/s mortality. anyway, my ideas come from reading the VBAC scientific literature. when i was preparing to VBAC, i read every paper i could get my hands on. IMO, VBAC vs. ERCS is a pretty good proxy for vaginal vs. c/s, cuz you can just subtract the mortality attributable to the previous c/s. and i didn't want to acknowledge it at first because it didn't go along with what i believed, but the studies showed a really small neonatal mortality in c/s babies.

however, i'd love for someone to bust through with a flaw in that logic! my opinions are never set in stone.
majormajor is offline  
#21 of 105 Old 03-03-2009, 06:46 PM
 
Storm Bride's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 27,300
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by majormajor View Post
sorry, i should be more specific! when i say safe, i'm thinking only of major morbidity or mortality. so, for babies, that's permanent brain damage, paralysis, and death. for mothers, pretty much only death (just personal parameters).
That's one of my biggest problems with this whole issue. Doctors get to define what parameters define "safe", then they get to decide which procedure is "safer". (Incidentally, why does paralysis count for a baby, but not for a mother?)

I had an "uncomplicated" c-section the first time. A close friend had an uncomplicated vaginal delivery about a year before that. The day after her baby was born, she was walking around the house. A week after my baby arrived, I got stuck on my couch, unable to even stand up to pick up my baby, who needed to eat. Fortunately, it was "only" about half an hour, before I managed to stand up, and fortunately, there was no emergency (only urgency). That surgery was not safer than, or even as safe as, an uncomplicated vaginal birth.

Frankly, until doctors actually document all the consequences of c-sections (they don't), and accept that it's up to the patient to decide if those consequences have a negative impact on their lives, I don't care what they say, or what their studies say.

My records don't show the permanent numbness in my abdomen and pelvis (and I don't care if you or the medical profession consider that a safety issue or not - I'm the one living with it, and all the ramifications of it). My records didn't show the, admittedly minor, infection in my incision in 2005...the one that kept the incision from closing for almost two months. My records don't show when one my kids hurts themselves, because I'm physically incapable of moving quickly enough to prevent an accident that I can see is about to happen. My records don't show the emotional and psychological impact of being unable to have a baby for ten years and wondering that whole time if it was because of my primary c-section. In other words...my records (aside from the errors and lies) are worthless.

The only recovery I've had that would be considered at all complicated by the medical profession was my last one, and a large part of that was because my son was stillborn. Yes - it was a HBAmC attempt, but my uterus didn't rupture, and nobody has any idea why he died. The c-section didn't stop his death...and I'll never know if the previous three contributed to it.

Lisa, lucky mama of Kelly (3/93) ribboncesarean.gif, Emma (5/03) ribboncesarean.gif, Evan (7/05) ribboncesarean.gif, & Jenna (6/09) ribboncesarean.gif
Loving my amazing dh, James & forever missing ribbonpb.gif Aaron Ambrose ribboncesarean.gif (11/07) ribbonpb.gif

Storm Bride is offline  
#22 of 105 Old 03-03-2009, 07:21 PM
 
Storm Bride's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 27,300
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I also wanted to add that I don't believe the increase in respiratory problems is solely because of prematurity or low birthweight. DD was my only (so far) scheduled, labour-free section. She's also the only one of my children who had breathing issues at birth. However, she wasn't premature. She was taken at 39w, 2d, and my dates are firm. She also weighed 10lb. 2oz. She simply wasn't ready to be born. That's all.

Lisa, lucky mama of Kelly (3/93) ribboncesarean.gif, Emma (5/03) ribboncesarean.gif, Evan (7/05) ribboncesarean.gif, & Jenna (6/09) ribboncesarean.gif
Loving my amazing dh, James & forever missing ribbonpb.gif Aaron Ambrose ribboncesarean.gif (11/07) ribbonpb.gif

Storm Bride is offline  
#23 of 105 Old 03-03-2009, 10:15 PM
 
L&K'smommie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: AK
Posts: 727
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I don't know statistics of the other things but when I worked at an OB/GYN office a few years ago c/s did indeed cost more than a normal vaginal delivery(by at least $5000) and that was just the office charges. Now did each particular doctor see that extra money probably not but the doctor who owned the practice did. Plus, a c/s pays a lot more to the hospital than does a vaginal delivery so I can see how money could be an incentive but probably not as big of an incentive as convenience.

S, mama to L(DD)-12/04, K(DS1)-12/06, C(DS2)-03/09 & B(DS3)-05/11

L&K'smommie is offline  
#24 of 105 Old 03-03-2009, 10:29 PM
 
barefootpoetry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 1,676
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by majormajor View Post
sorry, i should be more specific! when i say safe, i'm thinking only of major morbidity or mortality. so, for babies, that's permanent brain damage, paralysis, and death. for mothers, pretty much only death (just personal parameters).
The risk of death, both to mother AND baby according to every study I've found, is roughly three times greater with a C-section than a vaginal birth. There is the hole you asked for.

Also, what about all the other risks SHORT of death? If you don't die, does that mean everything else doesn't matter? What about placenta problems in future pregnancies? What about long-term lack of sensation at the scar site? What about incision infections? What about internal infections? What about PTSD and other birth-related trauma? What about the emotional affects of "giving birth" without the proper cocktail of hormones, a great recipe for PPD? What about the negative affect on the BFing relationship? What about baby developing asthma or allergies later in life, which some people suggest could be tied to Cesareans? What about the negligible, but worth mentioning, risk of baby being cut during the surgery? What about one of momy's organs accidentally being nicked? What about negative reactions to the anesthesia? What about hemorrage? I came a breath away from dying during a catastrophic hemorrage that would NOT have happened if I hadn't had an unnecessary Cesarean. The world went black, I couldn't speak or move, and my body was ice cold. But I guess since I didn't actually die and my baby isn't brain-damaged, it's all good.
barefootpoetry is offline  
#25 of 105 Old 03-03-2009, 11:45 PM
 
Storm Bride's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 27,300
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by L&K'smommie View Post
I don't know statistics of the other things but when I worked at an OB/GYN office a few years ago c/s did indeed cost more than a normal vaginal delivery(by at least $5000) and that was just the office charges. Now did each particular doctor see that extra money probably not but the doctor who owned the practice did. Plus, a c/s pays a lot more to the hospital than does a vaginal delivery so I can see how money could be an incentive but probably not as big of an incentive as convenience.
I used to haunt the OB forums (had to stop because it was bad for my blood pressure, yk?), and I recall a time when they were discussing how great it would be to work at a 100% c-section hospital. Several of them treated the idea as a "died and gone to heaven" kind of scenario. They definitely like the convenience.

Lisa, lucky mama of Kelly (3/93) ribboncesarean.gif, Emma (5/03) ribboncesarean.gif, Evan (7/05) ribboncesarean.gif, & Jenna (6/09) ribboncesarean.gif
Loving my amazing dh, James & forever missing ribbonpb.gif Aaron Ambrose ribboncesarean.gif (11/07) ribbonpb.gif

Storm Bride is offline  
#26 of 105 Old 03-04-2009, 02:53 AM
 
murphysaangel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Green Twp, NJ
Posts: 771
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
"The Home Birth Advantage" by Mayer Einstein is great for statistics in this country. You could also send her info from ICAN and I am sure that Mothering.com has it's own list of great articles. I'm a firm believer in the fact that major abdominal surgery is ALWAYS going to be far complicated and pose more real and long-term risks for baby and mom. I'll try to find it but I know there's a study done by chiropractors that showed the baby's cranium is not properly shaped during c-sec's and will be more likely to have immune system problems due to the increase in pressure on the atlas and occiput (that would otherwise have been released during vag. birth). Not to mention increased risk for mom and baby of infection, major bloos loss, baby being nicked by scalpel, etc. I can attest to infection - after my son was born via unplanned cesarean I had 3 infections in as many weeks - with a high fever of over 104, the last one landing me back in the hospital and unable to breastfeed for 3 days. Luckily we were all fine after that and my ds took back to the breast no problem. But it's just one more non-immediate risk to the baby: less chance for bonding to mom and increase in the likelyhood of problems breastfeeding.

*Meghan* - Mom to Sam (5/14/08) and Joseph Scott born 9/10/09! and wife to amazing hubby Mike : ! WE LOVE OUR : FAMILY!
murphysaangel is offline  
#27 of 105 Old 03-04-2009, 03:07 AM
 
phrogger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,157
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
C-sections are safer, then they were 50 years ago, but that is probably the extent of them being "safer". In general, they are not safer then a vaginal birth. There is something extremely important with the baby going through labor and then being squeezed through the birth canal.

C-sections CAN and DO save lives, I wont discount that at all. I have had one medically nessicary c-section that I have no doubt without there could have been some major complications (premature high order multiples) but really, how often does that happen? Not often at all.

My OB also makes the same no matter how the baby gets here, but it does make it easier on him. He is the only Dr. in the practice so unless he plans to have someone on call for him, he is usually the on call guy.
phrogger is offline  
#28 of 105 Old 03-04-2009, 03:22 AM
 
leila1213's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,624
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Also, even if the doc is paid the same for a C/S vs. v-birth, scheduling the C/S (or induction) will guarantee they are credited with the revenue. Whereas, if labor is allowed to start on its own, they may not be on call at the time and therefore revenue goes to another dr.

***
leila1213 is offline  
#29 of 105 Old 03-04-2009, 10:25 AM
 
majormajor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 777
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by barefootpoetry View Post
The risk of death, both to mother AND baby according to every study I've found, is roughly three times greater with a C-section than a vaginal birth. There is the hole you asked for.

Also, what about all the other risks SHORT of death? If you don't die, does that mean everything else doesn't matter? What about placenta problems in future pregnancies? What about long-term lack of sensation at the scar site? What about incision infections? What about internal infections? What about PTSD and other birth-related trauma? What about the emotional affects of "giving birth" without the proper cocktail of hormones, a great recipe for PPD? What about the negative affect on the BFing relationship? What about baby developing asthma or allergies later in life, which some people suggest could be tied to Cesareans? What about the negligible, but worth mentioning, risk of baby being cut during the surgery? What about one of momy's organs accidentally being nicked? What about negative reactions to the anesthesia? What about hemorrage? I came a breath away from dying during a catastrophic hemorrage that would NOT have happened if I hadn't had an unnecessary Cesarean. The world went black, I couldn't speak or move, and my body was ice cold. But I guess since I didn't actually die and my baby isn't brain-damaged, it's all good.
perhaps i'm not being clear enough: c/s is, as far as the research has shown to this point, certainly more dangerous for the mother. that's, IMO, the number one reason we need to try to lower the c/s rate.

also, your absolutely right that there are quite a few more minor and major morbidities associated with c/s. when i was trying to make a choice between VBAC and ERCS, i decided to ignore those. like i said, personal preferences... but how do you weigh the odds a baby will be nicked by a scapel against the odds that it could die? to me, you can't have enough nicks to make a preventable death worth it.

so no, i'm absolutely not saying i think elective c/s is a great idea. however, i am saying that a first c/s is safer for a baby than a vaginal deliery, in terms of major morbidity and death. i know that's not a popular opinion on this website, which is probably why i usually stay out of these discussions!

and like i said before, i know what the research shows. there's only very scant, very flawed research that pits c/s against v-birth. like that worthless macdorman study. so, like i said, i have used VBAC as a proxy for vaginal birth vs. c/s. when you subtract the morbidity and mortality due to the c/s, i think you get a pretty good comparison of the two. and actually, there is a flaw with this method. i'd like to see how c/s affects mortality in the first year. more SIDS? more infections?

i also didn't mean to imply that experiences like your hemmorhage don't matter. i was trying to say that when i was looking at the data for myself, i decided that maternal mortality was the only parameter that i really cared about for myself. of course i would never want that for me or anyone, i didn't factor but the odds of it happening into my decision making, just because i didn't want to make myself crazy. i know c/s is more dangerous for mom.

baby, got to go!
majormajor is offline  
#30 of 105 Old 03-04-2009, 11:34 AM
 
MegBoz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Baltimore, MD
Posts: 2,125
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by majormajor View Post
sorry, i should be more specific! when i say safe, i'm thinking only of major morbidity or mortality.

Um, ok. I find that confusing, considering you first wrote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by majormajor View Post
a c/s (after 39-40 weeks) is probably the safest way for a baby to be born,
So "safest" means "safer than vaginal birth," correct?

If you say that CS is "safest way" (i.e. meaning "SAFER than vaginal birth") then why would you not include all risks? Even if the CS has only slightly higher risks, or risks that aren't life-threatening, such as transient breathing problems?

I don't understand why anyone would even bother to say, "IF you compare only death rates, CS is safest. (Yes, there are other risks to CS, but let us disregard those.)" Why? Why would you disregard all the other factors? What is the point of such a comparison?

Quote:
i'm not a big believer in much of the published research... i think there are so many flaws, and a lot of the research just doesn't do a good job of answering the question it's trying to answer. it's not that i think science doesn't work, it's just that i'm not sure how i feel about epidemiology. i think it might truly suck, but i'm still working out my feelings on that.
You are absolutely correct that there are many lousy studies. Fortunately, there are some scientists out there who do know how to conduct good studies. If you read "Born in the USA" by Dr. Marsden Wagner, he talks extensively about bad research & why it is bad.

But finally, I think quantity is important. With large enough sample sizes and enough studies, the truth will emerge... like it or not.

Quote:
you can't do a randomized, double-blind, controlled trial on c/s vs. vaginal birth, so you have to do what you can with what you have.
Yes, the randomized double-blind study is the absolute ideal format for conducting research. Yes, one can't be done on CS vs. vaginal. (Actually... I'm fairly certain some docs have tried!! I'm pretty sure I read that in either the book "Pushed" or "Born in the USA" but they didn't get women interesting in participating.

Anyway, there are many things you can't do a randomized, double-blind study on. That doesn't mean the scientific community collectively throws their hands up in the air and says, "Humph, we just don't know." Yes, you're right you do the best with what you have. When you get large enough sample sizes so that you can match similar cases, you CAN get good data without the randomized double-blind.

Quote:
and anyway, there are few studies looking at just c/s mortality.....
IMO, VBAC vs. ERCS is a pretty good proxy for vaginal vs. c/s, cuz you can just subtract the mortality attributable to the previous c/s.
Again, I have to wonder why you'd even consider this. Frankly, I'm shocked. Can you imagine if you went to your dentist and he said, "You have gum disease. I want to give you a treatment that may have nasty side-effects. BUT, it won't kill you - your rate of dying from this medical treatment procedure is not any higher than if we didn't do the procedure. Sure, there are other harmful, negative, and painful side effects. But the mortality rate is not higher. So you are fine with that, Right?
MegBoz is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Drag and Drop File Upload
Drag files here to attach!
Upload Progress: 0
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Mothering Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off